The blind men and the elephant

It is such a famous story to illustrate religious pluralism that it has its own wikipedia page.

I've heard two problems with the story which people have pointed out to me:

1. It is told from the perspective of the one man who can see

"In the famous story of the blind men and the elephant… the real point of the story is constantly overlooked. The story is told from the point of view of the king and his courtiers, who are not blind but can see that the blind men are unable to grasp the full reality of the elephant and are only able to get hold of part of it. The story is constantly told in order to neutralize the affirmations of the great religions, to suggest that they learn humility and recognize that none of them can have more than one aspect of the truth. But, of course, the real point of the story is exactly the opposite. If the king were also blind, there would be no story. What this means then is that there is an appearance of humility and a protestation that the truth is much greater than anyone of us can grasp. But if this is used to invalidate all claims to discern the truth, it is in fact an arrogant claim with the kind of knowledge which is superior that you have just said, no religion has." (p. 9, Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society)

2. The elephant is passive

It presumes that we are on a quest to find a 'God' who is doing nothing to make himself known. Gloriously the truth is that God speaks while the elephant remains silent, pursues us rather than waiting to be found and opens our eyes to see him.

with thanks to my housemate